The Science is Settled: Big Oil Openly admits Climate change was real.

[oil&gas]

Considering how much of Russia's economy is based on fossil fuel exports...

Russia's production of oil and gas if not coal will see a sharp
drop in the coming years. Climate driven slowdown in fossil
fuel production in the west is a godsend to Russia as it will
enable them to export less and still make more money.

Putin’s Useful Idiots: How U.S. Climate Extremists Are Funding Russia’s Agenda

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illuminating an ugly truth: the anti-fracking war on America’s energy security is being waged.

www.commonwealthfoundation.org

 

[Charlie_]

Yes, we all know this. Unfortunately, there is no scientific solution to the climate change problem.

 

[JohnLarue]

But my absolute favourite tactic…. Was claiming all the scientific models were wrong (past threads, but briefly eluded too recently)… because Beers Law and saturation was not accounted for. And the explanation was bang on… detailed, accurate… but
incomplete.

View attachment 167108

Seems the conditions the Law works under were never addressed. And a quick google search shows that every climate scientist clearly understands this, and it was not in fact ignored in the models.

Beer-Lambert Law Limitations
Using this law it becomes easy to study the absorptivity coefficient of the sample when the concentration is low i.e. <10mM but as the concentration becomes high i.e. >10mM there is a deviation as the electrostatic interactions become more.


When does the Beer-Lambert law fail?
The law fails at high concentrations (>0.01M) due to electrostatic interactions between molecules in proximity.

Watching you fumble your way through a scientific principal is like watching a monkey trying to play a musical instrument.

The reference to electrostatic interactions refer to liquid samples, where ionic forces are very high particulatly in aqueous solutions
Gasses have very weak ionic forces
Covlalent bonding in CO2 is exceptional strong, >>>>> ionized co2 ?? probaly only in the ionisphere or in the vacinity of a lighening strike

The use of the Beer lambert equation is far more prevalent with liquid samples as concretation of samples (eg Amino acids, medical applications etc) is determined via the absorbance mesurement vs calibtated know samples.

Too high a concnetration results in absorbance topping out @ 100% (saturated)
Then it becomes a matter of carefully dilution of samples. I recall this being a bit of a pain in the ass.

But, lets humour you. 400 ppm is pretty dilute
400 ppm = 400/1,000,000* 44.01 (CO2) / 28.96 (Air) * 1000 = 0.607 mM >>>>>> not an issue
This is likely moot as the atmosphere is not a liquid sample and your limitation is not applcable


A= log (Io/I)=elc
What you fail to understand is the energy tranmitted (I) can never exceed the incident energy (Io)
so adding more CO2 alway results in deminishing returns
The incremental effect from incremental additions of Co2 becomes vanishingly small and undetectable

 

[oil&gas]

The only basis for dispute so far has been that notwithstanding the dire predictions the world has not come to an end yet. Absurd. The debate was over long ago. The deniers may as well be arguing that the earth is flat.

It is not clear to me if those dire predictions are taken
seriously even by climate change believers or that we never
actually know precisely what they are.

If I have an illness diagnosed as cancer I would be
stupid not to believe the doctor's dire prediction of my
doom just because I remain alive for a longer period
than expected. With that in mind I understand
just because it may not be possible to make a prediction
of the time when the world is going to be destroyed by
climate change is not the ground for climate denial.

Until lately this is my understanding of the dire
prediction of climate activists speaking on behalf
of climate scientists. That is carbon emission growth
of the *entire world* has to be reversed and reduced
drastically and promptly like 50% by 2030 or it is inevitable
the world is to be hit by catastrophe in the future. How far
it is going to be in the future is not known. Voices of climate
activists seem to imply it is our younger generation
that is life of those in their teens to 20's or 30's
on earth will become a struggle for survival. So it sounds like
catastrophe could be as early as 20 years away.

Not knowing how dire the future scenario of climate
catastrophe could be I don't know for sure if denial of
climate change is really worth the hassle. Anyway if
events are going to unfold as I imagine below and
if the climate catastrophe to be triggered by unchecked
emission growth is a deadly one (which I don't know if
that is what climate scientists want us to believe)
I think you may as well tell the younger generation to
prepare to die. Neither climate change denial or acceptance
today will have much significance.

In the coming years you can expect fossil fuel exporters
in the west namely Norway, Canada and Australia to stress
'low carbon' oil, gas and coal as the rationale behind increasing
or sustaining fossil fuel production so as to continue bringing
in the cash to support their climate-change-positive leaders.
Deep water drillers in Newfoundland and oil sand producers
will continue striving to reduce emission as well as to increase
production of a fuel of which the carbon intensity remains
a constant. World's prominent investors including Larry Fink, Bill Gates,
Bezos, Mark Carney and their peers all of whom climate-change believers
will continue providing support to transition to renewable energy in words
while putting their money where profits are to be made which means
fossil fuel, private jets, space travel and super yachts for the wealthy.


Outside the west China and India are going to increase
coal consumption through the 2030. They will buy up all the
Russian gas unwanted by Europe and the UK both of whom
will return to coal to survive winter cold.

And what follows is the long awaited climate catastrophe
whether the entire world believe in climate change or not.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, we all know this. Unfortunately, there is no scientific solution to the climate change problem.

Stop burning dead dinosaurs and build renewable generation and tech.

 

[toguy5252]

It is not clear to me if those dire predictions are taken
seriously even by climate change believers or that we never
actually know precisely what they are.

If I have an illness diagnosed as cancer I would be
stupid not to believe the doctor's dire prediction of my
doom just because I remain alive for a longer period
than expected. With that in mind I understand
just because it may not be possible to make a prediction
of the time when the world is going to be destroyed by
climate change is not the ground for climate denial.

Until lately this is my understanding of the dire
prediction of climate activists speaking on behalf
of climate scientists. That is carbon emission growth
of the *entire world* has to be reversed and reduced
drastically and promptly like 50% by 2030 or it is inevitable
the world is to be hit by catastrophe in the future. How far
it is going to be in the future is not known. Voices of climate
activists seem to imply it is our younger generation
that is life of those in their teens to 20's or 30's
on earth will become a struggle for survival. So it sounds like
catastrophe could be as early as 20 years away.

Not knowing how dire the future scenario of climate
catastrophe could be I don't know for sure if denial of
climate change is really worth the hassle. Anyway if
events are going to unfold as I imagine below and
if the climate catastrophe to be triggered by unchecked
emission growth is a deadly one (which I don't know if
that is what climate scientists want us to believe)
I think you may as well tell the younger generation to
prepare to die. Neither climate change denial or acceptance
today will have much significance.

In the coming years you can expect fossil fuel exporters
in the west namely Norway, Canada and Australia to stress
'low carbon' oil, gas and coal as the rationale behind increasing
or sustaining fossil fuel production so as to continue bringing
in the cash to support their climate-change-positive leaders.
Deep water drillers in Newfoundland and oil sand producers
will continue striving to reduce emission as well as to increase
production of a fuel of which the carbon intensity remains
a constant. World's prominent investors including Larry Fink, Bill Gates,
Bezos, Mark Carney and their peers all of whom climate-change believers
will continue providing support to transition to renewable energy in words
while putting their money where profits are to be made which means
fossil fuel, private jets, space travel and super yachts for the wealthy.


Outside the west China and India are going to increase
coal consumption through the 2030. They will buy up all the
Russian gas unwanted by Europe and the UK both of whom
will return to coal to survive winter cold.

And what follows is the long awaited climate catastrophe
whether the entire world believe in climate change or not.

I regards you as a thoughtful poster whether or not I agree with you.

With the exception of you virtually every other poster on this board simply points to the fact that catastrophe has not yet befallen us to argue the climate science is a hoax.

Although i largely agree with your assessment of our future prospects I am somewhat more optimistic than you and I am hopeful that at some point the deniers and legislators and autocrats around the world will wake up. I do not believe the exigencies of the moment (Ukraine/Russia etc.) will necessarily determine our future.

 

[basketcase]

Russia's production of oil and gas if not coal will see a sharp
drop in the coming years. Climate driven slowdown in fossil
fuel production in the west is a godsend to Russia as it will
enable them to export less and still make more money.
...

Do you not see the contradiction in your post?

I know this is pretty complex but if the demand for oil by Europe goes down, there will be no justification for Russia to raise the price. They will either have to reduce production or make it cheaper to convince China to buy more.

 

[basketcase]

Y...


AGW have never been proven by experiment & thus remains an unverified scientific theory
...

All these years of you spouting the same nonsense, dodging and weaving away from the points you can't answer and you still have no understanding of science.

Climate science use their understanding to make predictions and despite your repeated false claims, those predictions tend to do a very good job. They aren't perfect because there are many uncontrolled variables in our observations but they sure as fuck aren't science.

Next thing you're going to tell us that gravity doesn't exist because we can't directly experiment with different amounts of gravity.

 

[Charlie_]

Stop burning dead dinosaurs and build renewable generation and tech.

Renewal energy is not the savior. 70% of the world's renewable energy comes from hydro, which is now under threat due to drought conditions and low water levels.

 

[JohnLarue]

With the exception of you virtually every other poster on this board simply points to the fact that catastrophe has not yet befallen us to argue the climate science is a hoax.

Is there another way to desrcibe an endless stream of catestrophic predictions & non stop propaganda?

Your view is akin to witch dunking
if she floats, she is a witch to be burnt at the stake , if she drowns she was not a witch
either way she dies

if the catastrophes happen,we must eliminate fossil fuels
if the catastrophes have not happened yet, the hoax remains intact & we must eliminate fossil fuels
either way we must eliminate fossil fuels & millions will die, with billions impoversished

 

[JohnLarue]

Renewal energy is not the savior. 70% of the world's renewable energy comes from hydro, which is now under threat due to drought conditions and low water levels.

good luck geeting the regulatory approval to alter any water ways for new hydro
Any new nuclear proposal is 100% certain to spend years/ decades in the courts. The enviornuts are well funded & uncomprimising

 

[valentinaluxxx]

We need to take care of our beautiful earth

 

[oil&gas]

Do you not see the contradiction in your post?

I know this is pretty complex but if the demand for oil by Europe goes down, there will be no justification for Russia to raise the price. They will either have to reduce production or make it cheaper to convince China to buy more.

In the near term Russia has to reduce price due to sanctions. It won't be
long before global supply falling to a level where Russia and other oil exporters
can charge a hefty premium. By then it will be too late for the west to drive
up fossil fuel production to alleviate a devastating energy crunch.

 

[oil&gas]

We need to take care of our beautiful earth

Only possible if an orderly and gradual reduction of
world's population to less than half of where they are
is completed before earth's fossil fuel resources are
totally depleted possibly by early 22nd century.

 

[oil&gas]

.............................................
With the exception of you virtually every other poster on this board simply points to the fact that catastrophe has not yet befallen us to argue the climate science is a hoax.
....................................

Climate science is not a hoax. Climate change in climate science is represented
in a way by the media, activists and some of our leaders in a way that makes many
people (me included) believe it is a hoax. No one wants to believe the world
as we know will end. This is not a logical way of thinking but it is human nature
for people to believe what they want to believe. Climate change deniers differ
from climate change believers mainly in what they believe not what they understand
about climate science. Though not a climate scientists myself I probably am more
rigorously schooled in physical science than most climate researchers and have
crossed path with more climate scientists than all of the terbites combined. And
yet I am the science denier if I reject climate change.

As far as I am concerned I would be pretty much the same
person I was if I become a climate change believer tomorrow. I
probably should vote for Trudeau and reject both PC and the
Green Party of Canada to qualify as a climate change sheeple.

The climate movement will be judged by history
as one monumental farce in the western world.
Younger generation will be the ones who bear the
brunt of the folly of the adults who told them
climate change is all the faults of government and Big
Oil. Sooner or later they will pay the price when they
get caught by surprise in a devastating energy crunch
they are totally unprepared for.

 

[Frankfooter]

Renewal energy is not the savior. 70% of the world's renewable energy comes from hydro, which is now under threat due to drought conditions and low water levels.

Yes, fossil fuel caused climate change is hitting hydro energy pretty hard.
So you buy into wind and solar and build either gravity storage or batteries.

 

[Frankfooter]

Climate science is not a hoax.... Though not a climate scientists myself I probably am more
rigorously schooled in physical science than most climate researchers and have
crossed path with more climate scientists than all of the terbites combined. And
yet I am the science denier if I reject climate change.

You already admitted that you know your products cause climate change.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Charlie_]

So you buy into wind and solar and build either gravity storage or batteries.

This doesn't work. If it did the Germans wouldn't be begging the world for all the natural gas they can burn, and restarting their old coal-fired power stations.

 

[Frankfooter]

This doesn't work. If it did the Germans wouldn't be begging the world for all the natural gas they can burn, and restarting their old coal-fired power stations.

It does work, you just can't implement that much in a few months.

 

[Charlie_]

It does work, you just can't implement that much in a few months.

If it worked, the fossil fuel industry would have perished, years ago, like the dinosaurs. Instead, they are flourishing, making record profits, because the world is paying an arm and a leg for their products.